NOBODY really needs one if your system is set up right.In most cases it does not realy blend with the main speakers. |
Dear Jloveys: I Agree with you about that 3D sound image.
I take more than 8 months to integrate my subs " seamless " where I was looking not exactly for a better soundstage ( that at the end was an improvement too. ) but: better bass quality, extend the bass range and its quality performance, lower IMD to achieve better midbass/midrange performance, high frequencies with better natural transparency, better tonal balance and better " true ".
These targets ( and other ones ) can/could be achiving with that " seamless " subs integration.
Not and easy task, very time consuming where patience, know-how and good ears are desirible.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Again, contrary to common belief, those Quads 57 have plenty of bass, very well controlled but needs right room placement. What extra subwoofer ads is absolutely not "more" bass, but a 3D projected sound image of the whole spectrum, when switching off the sub this holographic sound collapses instantanealy in a flat ( still coherent ) presentation. What Gradient or Mark Levinson did with stereo dipole subs + supertweeters was IMHO to correct supposed defficiencies of the pannels instead of trying to make shining their qualities; are they sounding like ESL 57 anymore ? I doubt it. The sub integration must be done with a touch of subtility just enough to make that "soundstage" appear, the sub must "disappear". It takes me a few hours to set up correctly this integration parameter. So using a second sub or better as many as 4 is a good experiment to try , but I will do it with very small subs in srategic places of the room, with very very small amount of "sub" effect, just a tiny little to boost the stereoscopic imaging of the pannels a step ahead. |
Dear Jloveys: I don't know if you ever consider to mate your Quad's with two subs in real stereo fashion. It could be interesting and IMHO it could give you a " natural " quality performance improvement.
f course that that is room/system dependent but maybe worth to try it.
What do you think about?
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: Well, here is where I read the subs re-wiring mod: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1140494870&openflup&36&4#36
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Jloveys: Like in many other audio topics there are a lot of mis-understood on some subjects.
The subwwofer one is full of false myths and non know-how about and that's why not so many people can take the huge advantage of the subwoofer great quality improvement in almost any audio system.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul, that Soundstage article is the exact description of my own experience on integrating subwoofers with ESL pannels, thank you, relieves another myth from the global audiophile conciousness...something is hard to fight against even if your own experience proofs the contrary. This article gives me some fresh air and I feel more comfortable not beeing totaly wrong. |
This one could help you too: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1117893153&openflup&84&4#84
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Utahusker: As you posted LaScala maybe can/could give you clean in room response down to 50-55 Hz no deep bass.
Now, you don't have to loose what you have, the " idea " is to improve what you ( we ) have.
The La Scala woofer crossover is 400 Hz that tell us that that woofer works near 600 Hz, a wide frequency range that makes that the IMD go high and against quality performance.
+++++ " I don't want to ruin that sound with a slower muddy bass response that a subwoofer would provide. " +++++
if you can please read here to understand about and to understand how the subs can/could help to improve the quality performance of your home audio system:
http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb061999.htm
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1117893153&openflup&27&4#27
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
I have Klipsch Lascala's that don't dig real deep in the lower frequencies. That being said, I love the the tight realistic bass they provide. I don't want to ruin that sound with a slower muddy bass response that a subwoofer would provide. If I could find THAT perfect sub, I'd jump on it. |
Dear friends: This last experience that improve the low bass performance confirms to me that one critical factor to achieve " stellar " near " perfect " top quality system performance is try to improve the low bass quality performance in our audio systems.
Of course that room treatment help a lot but the subwoofers alternative is a very good " road " to make it and when we already have it then work in deep to achieve the best on it.
Every single day that pass and that I listen my " new " system is an immense joy/enjoy of the musi like never before.
Subject is that real low bass is a desirable factor but the real subject is to have that real low bass in " pristine " condition, when you achieve this your " idea " of top system quality performance change: you discover(y) a " new " world that you have in " front " of you ( with some systems up-dates ) and that you don't know is there but you can have it.
IMHO as much as you improve that bass response ( lowering IMD too. ) as much you improve the whole/overall ( in all single sound reproduction areas. ) performance of your system.
Yes, I'm really exite/rouse about and IMHO I think that everyone has the " right " to hear this kind of performance level where I know you can make it.
Sometimes is difficult to express these top/new experiences in words and as a fact maybe we can understand in precise/deep way when we hear it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: Some weeks ago I read in one of the Agoner's virtual systems ( sorry not remember which one. ) that one of you made a tweak to a Velodyne DD subwoofers changing the internal wiring with good results.
So, this week I decide to make the same change with my Velodyne's HGS-15, that take me 3-4 hours to complete the job in both units ( btw, the first one is where I take more time because this was my first time to attemp about and have to learn. ). It is a shame that these great subs comes wired from woofer to amplifier with plain zip cords ( I don't know how comes in the latest DD series. ).
I just change the internal wiring ( 50-60cm ) on the subwoofers for Kimber Kable KCAG ( the one that I had on hand , very good indeed. ) and the quality improvement on the system performance improve in a way that I never imagine.
This is not only that the bass is more clear, precise and with better definion and tight feeel but the midrange and high frequencies improve too making that the system performs now with a better pristine/transparent and natural presentation that I never heard/hear it.
I assume that with the new cables the distortions goes down and that's what permit to achieve this really nice and paramount quality improvement.
Yes, it is worth the effort to do it.
If you want to make it my advise is that you be carefully on the job, of course that you can email me if you think I can help you about.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Azjake: I never have the opportunity to hear those WB subs but I already read many great things about.
Congratulations for what you already achieve through them in both speakers.
I'm sure is a must to hear!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul,
Two Wilson Benesch subs used with BOTH monitors and full range for different reasons:
Monitors: for fill in and spread of bass in depth and dynamics
Full range : to "roll off" at a higher level to then enhance the range and full musicality of my top to bottom linear performance!
The WB's are amazingly fast, musical and offer extreme quality if not the last word in quantity... |
|
Halcro: Now I remember that article where comes those scientific studies about those 5,000 subs. I think that somewhere in this tread we can read it.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: Yes 4 could be better but I never try it and yes 5000 is the ideal with no one in the room!
Anyway you can try it, but I think that two are more " comfortable ".
Regards and enjoy the music.
raul. |
Raul,
There are scientific studies done that show that 4 subwoofers are better than 2. Of course they ran a computer plot to show that the ideal in a SMALL rectangular room was 5000 subs.....not much room for the listeners however :) |
Dear friends: For almost seventh months my system was running with only one subwoofer ( left-right channel bass signals in mono way. ) due that the other one was down because a failure, five/six weeks ago this one was fixed thank to Velodyne and I want to share with all of you something about:
due that I own two similar subwoofers we try to fix it at home, first we have to know where the failure comes so we check ( through the sub in good condition ) every single module and we found that the failure comes from the amplifier module that with out the diagram was a very hard time to fix it so I contact Velodyne and they agree that the amplifier module was the problem and that I send it to repair ( amplifier module alone ).
I did it and ten days later I receive a " big " box with the amplifier module ( at least that was what I think at that moment ) and when I open the box I was surprised that they not only send me the amplifier module but the whole subwoofer modules ( including the metal rear plate ): they send me a whole new electronic subwoofer modules!!!!, my hat off to Velodyne.
Over those six months my ears/brain were totally accustom/equalized to that single subwoofer quality system performance.
I connect the second one and put some of my prefered Lp's and the quality performance of the system " suffer " a big improvement against the " one subwoofer " fashion, this improvement is on the quality performance level not on quantity.
Through this experience I confirm again that one subwoofer in an audio system is the ( almost ) wrong way to go.
IMHO nothing compares to two subwoofers in true stereo fashion!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Jimjoyce25: Nice to see that you agree.
IMHO with today advance on subwoofer designs it is more easy to integrate on almost any system, the DD Velodyne series are really good about and works in almost any system you can imagine.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dgob: Nice to read that you are really satisfied too.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Agreed that taking the low bass out of the satellites by utilizing subwoofers greatly improves the performance of the satellites, apparently by materially reducing the amount of work the satellites need to do.
This was immediately evident when I auditioned the speaker system I purchased in 1990, and still own. The designer was fanatical about the importance of low bass, and he knew what he was about. Even though the satellites are great, their performance is not the same without the subwoofers.
Best is when the stereo subwoofers are designed, tested and tuned as part of the system with the satellites, with appropriate crossovers and built-in amps designed especially for the subwoofers. |
Dear Halcro: It is nic to read about and that you are really satisfied with those stereo subwoofrs, good fo you: congratulations!!!!
+++++ " ..it's just that you may not be right ALL of the time.... " +++++
I never posted thinking in that way my whole attitude certainly it is not but maybe because of my English trouble what you read can/could seems like if I'm saying in that way but it is not, my attitude ( fo the good or bad ) is to help.
Normally what I post/posted have its foundation in facts/experiences that I already had somewhere ( like the subwoofers subject ) and what I do/did is only to share it with every one but this does not means " per se " that what works for me can/could work for you.
That's why I almost always say please try it before you speak about, this is main part of anyone audio learning curve, I learn/learned in this way: testing/trying, speak/talk on someting that I have no experience is useless for everyone.
Anyway, IMHO the best on this forum is that sometimes something that anyone of us posted can/could help to other people and this is one of my main targets when I post.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Halcro,
I know what you mean. The experience has been fantastic for me, my system and listening enjoyment. A huge step closer to that holy grail!;~) |
Raul, whilst I may query your selection of turntables and arms on occasion, I must tell you how right you are about the utilisation of two subwoofers over one.
For 10 years I had a single REL Stadium II subwoofer integrated in my system and was quite happy with the sound. After installing the Halcro DM58 monoblocks, I found that they drove my full-range speakers down to the same low frequencies as did the REL.....so for the last 2 years I have lived happily without any subwoofers. Your thoughts, and those of Richard Hardesty in the Audio Perfectionist convinced me to try two subs in my system. I purchased two Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofers, and after some help from John Rutan of Audioconnection in integrating them properly, I must admit that everything you say about having two instead of one is correct. The extra extension into the lower octaves is probably the LEAST important improvement wrought. The entire musical presentation has rocketed to a previously unimaginable level. The 3 dimensional space between and behind instruments has snapped into such dramatic relief that guests who listen, turn to each other in disbelief. The sound of the main speakers have an ease and purity together with seemingly unlimited headroom, and listening to full symphony orchestras with a solid bass foundation is as close to the real thing as I have experienced. It's great to have your contributions on this forum.......it's just that you may not be right ALL of the time? |
Dear Sirspeedy: Yes, absolutely!.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul,one other point.....Please re-read the "last" line,in your original "Post"!!
You ask us to let you know "what we think"!
I,and some others have done that,and you STILL adhere to your "own" specific agenda(nothing wrong with that,btw).Yet,you seem to become contrary to any opposing views.Under "some" circumstances....like,"maybe some of us are really happy already,and(miraculously)actually have very good,"linear" low frequencies....because ALL rooms are different,in how they support bass"!!!
My own point(which is ONLY in MY room,with MY PARTICULAR set-up)is that "SOME" rooms,and particular speakers/system set-ups may not necessarily benefit much by a second sub.SOMETIMES,and it is NOT uncommon!!
If you don't agree with the somewhat opposing thoughts,then I suggest you re-word the "last line"(of your post),to read.....
"What do you think,so I(Raul) can disagree,and tell you so,if the information is NOT to my way of thinking"!!
Best,as always,
Mark -:) |
Raul,you did not do your homework -:)
Since I assume you are still trying to convince "me" about the "why" I should add a second sub in my own set-up....
Well G.Morris "is" someone I like,and trust.....BUT....he has a completely different speaker/presentation/configuration/room than me.Also,my own speaker goes lower in freq(with more low freq weight than the "superb",but a bit rolled off Maggies.I know them extremely well,so I post from experience,not theory.
Besides -:)....I absolutely "love" my current "full range" sound.No complaints,other than still waiting for my table(coming on the 24th).My new Phantom and Orpheus "need" to play some vinyl!!
Raul,there are some times(I say this from experience)when things can be screwed up,if taken too far.In my room,with my equipment,and the "still surprising me daily" Ascent MK-II's I feel(from listening observation)that I can too easily make a mistake by adding a second sub,for "only" the lowest frequencies.Which(btw) I can "do" quite well,as of now!
Hope you can understand my point of view.
Best regards. |
Dear mark: Yes, I'm only posted as a reference/opinion.
Have a good time.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul,I am happy for G.Morris.
Best. |
Dear Sirspeedy: This is what Gmorris posted in this thread sometime ago:
+++++ " To fully recreate the recording space you need the lower octaves even if the recording involves instruments sans the lower registers.
I was surprised at the improvements in detail and ambience retrieval with increased delicacy as a result of the subs on all types of recordings.
Adding a second sub to complete the stereo pair, improved the overall presentation markedly (some folkes claim that low bass is nondirectional and thus one sw is sufficient, but a stereo pair improved everything). The subs also made the overall presentation more articulate and dynamic. " +++++
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dgob: +++++ " I guess that means that my answer is a resounding "YES", I definitely needed sub's - even though I had not realised it before! " +++++
Your last sentence means ( between other things ) that if we can we should try it.
Nice to hear you are satisfied.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Hi Raul, I am sorry ,sorry for the things I said to you. Since I said that truth is most important, I had a realisation why I am so "mad " at you, not Raul the man, but Rauls unsubstantial postings.
It started when I scrimped and saved to upgrade from my Lehman black cube phono preamp to a Hagerman Trumpet. I all ready owned a Shelter 901 MC cartridge, so I needed a step up. The Bent MU was my choice. At the time it was a popular combination and everything seemed right.
I recieved the units and started listening, playing with the resistors for impedance matching and enjoying the units.
I came across your post on why step ups are so bad and that in no way can you ever get good music from them. You said never will, no way. I read it and started thinking, well this comes from a man with much experience. So I started listening to what you described, thought about buying an active preamp. I never did buy the active preamp and perservered and soon forgot you negative comments about step up transformers and started to enjoy my system. Never did hear the problems you associated with them, the problems could still be there and perhaps some day I will have an active preamp and enjoy it as well. But there I was holding these black and chrome beauties, and Raul was pissing on my parade.
I then started noticing your other posts s.s. vs tube phono preamps, who needs moving coil when moving magnet is best, two subs vs one (at least this one I had covered with two subs), etc... never offering real ways to obtain good sound just negative critisim and negating whole topographies, that were not your way. And how with your test measurement ears, that I did not obviously posess, that I would never get great sound.
I started playing with the real problem of room acoustics. And came to realise it was not me, nor my lack of ability to buy multi thousand dollar equipment that was the problem. How could I not be happy with a $3,000 phono stage? Hey, that is multi thousand dollar! Are Jim Hagerman or John Chapman such idiots and that only Raul knows the true way. As i came to the realisation that without proper room acoustics you ain't hearing anywhere near what your equipment is close to being capable of. I realised what you are hearing and thought, poor Raul, no wonder he is so misguided.
So Raul, I believe that perhaps we both could learn something from this. I could be kinder and gentler in some of my posts and perhaps you could... well I think thats up for you to decide.
The good news is that I still have the Bent step ups and they do everything they should, they are real and the are spectacular.
The bad news is you still have a bad sounding room. There I go again... but really I am sorry and please accept my apologies
Have a good life, amigo.
Bob |
Just to note what I am now getting from using a pair of the Velodyne DD12 subs in stereo with my Talon Hawk monitors. I've used Audio Technica pneumatic footers beneath each sub and the sound is simply phenomenal. I think that the RL Hardesty article that Raul presents on the second page of this thread (07.02.05) just about sums up the impact of using subs for me. I guess that means that my answer is a resounding "YES", I definitely needed sub's - even though I had not realised it before! |
I happen to have a carefully voiced dedicated room(thank goodness)of which I am very satisfied finally,but after alot of sweat/experimentation....However I have heard "some" room/set-ups that have little actual treatment,or attention to acoustics,which sound "marvelous"!
A close friend, owning new Magico Minis,lives in an apartment building.His room is also a general living room,and has ordinary furniture,a T.V. and over sized coffee table,full rug etc...But he is a dedicated hobbyist!
Of course his "biggest problem" in getting a good sounding acoustic is his "wife" -:)...Just kidding,but you get my point!....She actually deserves a medal,for allowing the "hobby" to develop to such an extent in the ONLY spare room available(there is a kitchen and bedroom too).....But there are still acoustic issues which will "never" be addressed....Yet,and yet..it sounds "fabulous"...What can I say? It really does!....My friend is a "wine collector",so maybe his generous offerings are one reason I like his sound SO much -:)..I'm going there soon,I hope.
My friend Sid Marks(of Mercury Living Presence fame,as the reviewer for TAS....and I "ONLY" mention him in the context of his "expertise and high standards",an understatement actually)is NOT one to go out of his way to treat a listening room....He actually puts his efforts into still acquiring interesting LP's,to add to an almost unmatched collection,which takes up most of "his" premises(he is a bachelor).But he is VERY critical of "anything" taking away from musical authenticity.I don't question him anymore.He's proven himself too many times.
Yet(like Raul most likely is very fortunate to have),his room is "absolutely" fabulous!!I mean everyone lucky enough to hear his set-up(which defies logic,it is just SO GREAT)cannot believe how good the "basic" room "allows music to develop"!Who knows for sure how these things "always" work?...Looks can be deceiving!
He(Sid) has a big,bold,dynamic system which puts out alot of energy("probably" similar in energy output to Raul's)....but the acoustic energy just happens to be very well controlled,from the overall room dimensions/wall material,outer room openings etc.Yet,as I mentioned before,not much by way of acoustical treatment.Go figure!!
One cannot really assume a picture of a room,or description tells us everything about it's sound.I have NO reason to believe Raul has anything less than superb sound,really!The guy has been at this for a long time,and is passionate,like so many of us.
Also,a "true" friends group of hobbyists are usually relentless in being worse than "catty women" in critique!So,not to worry....if anyone has audio pals,they will keep you honest......And in my case,caused me to "build from scratch" a dedicated room!Lucky for me,interest rates were cheap at the time it was built.
I was unlucky(lucky in the long run,actually)in that when I bought my home,I thought the "first room" would be OK,but when my friends came over for a listen,they made the criticism on this thread look like a "peace rally"!!-:
Especially Sid who said..."It is a disaster Mark,and some day you will thank me for being SO honest"!!
The comments absolutely embarrassed me,in the poor attention I had paid to things(not to the actual acoustic,but the room's ability to let my speakers "breathe").
I've since solved my problem,but the ONLY way to know if one is successful,is from actual "in person auditioning"!
Best to all. |
Hi Acoustat6,
I still feel that the vehemance in the argument is a bit disproportionate. I just read the thread that seems to create many of the current issues and Raul states that he HAS treated his room: "I'm very luckily and don't have (I fix it) many room problems related." I'm not certain how extensive or successful this 'fix' now is in his system but it hardly seems grounds for assuming a complete acoustic disaster!
I feel that there are potential compromises in our efforts to capture live music and distinctions along the whole audio chain: original performance; unique venue; particular recording process; replay system (Hifi); receptive environment (both 'subjective' - hearing ability, preferences and expections - and 'objective' - listening room, stands etc). Our two most manageable and consistent parts in this chain would be the hifi and listening room. Maybe this typifies your argument and I do agree concerning the industry but we are all aware that Turkeys rarely vote for thanksgiving?
However, your point about the "live venue" could make any argument for neutrality redundant. If our "reproduced venue" becomes our individual "theatre" then the question of the performers that appear there would largely remain one for our hifi systems. This on the basis of your argument that there is no one, absolute "live venue" and performers will sound different at distinct venues/theatres. Such questions of compromise and individual judgement might therefore affect all points in the audio chain.
I probably have to say this however, as I have lived with my hifi in various and distinct acoustic environments and know that I can get a consistency through the best equipment and worse of environments. A customised listening room would however be the icing on my cake. Maybe for fairer times! |
Hi Dgob, I too believe, that the front end components are very important, you can't have "good" sound without them. The problem is audios dirty little secret and it inability to admit that without great in room response you cannot get even remotely close to great sound. And it is continually perpetuated through statements like "I Have a great room" when no acoustic treatment is applied.
The difference between a live venue and a "reproduced" venue is that the live venue sound only alters the sound at that theater, move to another theatre and the sound changes. At home, the recordings take on the colorations of the room and every recording is affected equally. Worse yet is comb filtering and decay times, treat the room properly and all of these proplems are decreased, and yes, then you are finally able to "listen to the music". If you remove these distortions then you are truly hearing the recordings and your equipment for what they are, and therefore accuracy (at least as accurate as your system allows) is obtained.
Bob |
Acoustat6, I must confess that I use two velodyne DD12 subs in stereo to my Talon Hawk monitors and the sound is fantastic. I was wondering if there are two distinct prioritisations between you and Raul here:
Raul focuses on the system from front (cartridge, cdp, tuner etc) to back (speakers and subs). Your concern seems more with what happens to that sound when it leaves the system. Of course the problems of acoustic fluctuation also often applies to the actual venues at which one hears live performances.
I do agree though that room acoustics are a critical issue. I just prefer to focus on having the best system I can and allowing it to grow into the differing listening environments that I will be able to afford over our lives. |
Hi Raul, since you did not want to play in my thread "In room response", I am back. First off I have nothing against you. Just the bull--it you keep expounding. You are contradictory, not just with me and others who post here, but with yourself (perhaps the biggest sin. Next to lying to yourself?), in almost all of your posts and I find it offensive. Especially when you are unable to verify or answer the most simple, albeit hard, questions. This thread "do you need a subwoofer",by itself, is full of it.
You say, "My audio/sound reproduction priorities are: neutral and natural tonal balance/pitch, Accuracy ( low distortion, low noise, no colorations, no cliping, grain free, liniarity, no compression, etc...), timbre, dynamic, focus and soundstage . My whole audio system target is to be nearest to the recording!!!"
"My audio/electronics priority is: accuracy/synergy/confidence/constant/."
Tell me Raul, How do you have any of those priorities when your in room freq response is +- 20db? Accuracy, how is that accurate? Natural tonal balance and pitch, how does one have accurate pitch and a natural tonal balance when related freq are +- 20db? No cororation, isn't a plus 15db or minus 20 db freq response a coloration?
Dynamics, you can't have maximum dynamics when you have dropouts of -5 to -20 db across the sound spectrum and +50 to +20db peaks limiting your volume levels.
Raul, you know for a fact that a resonably good, or better yet, a great freq response is one of the most important properties for audio reproduction. One of the basic tenets of audio reproduction is a response of 20-20,000hz. Thats why you do it in your preamp, thats why you want full range speakers or subs and super tweeters, because it does not matter where the error takes place the result is the same. One of the reasons why, if I were to buy your $12,800 preamp, I would pay for a +-001% freq response. Where there are changes in freq response you do one of two things. In a dip you loose detail, decay, dynamics, and the ability to get pitch and a "natural sound" amongst other things.
Where there are peaks you obscure detail by overpowering other freq and it makes the music sound "too loud" amongs other things.
Combine these two problems and and you can hear why it is so important and it does not matter where the comes from! The effect is still the same.
Another problem, of modal ringing, needs to be addressed. And there is only one way to obtain this, and it aint frilly curtains and doilies. You have to stop the low freq reverb that obscures music and imaging.
.
An in room response of 20-20,000hz response is preferable, within reason +-2.5db (and thats debatable) along with a subjective in room response that is pleasurable to the ear. And please please don't hang me with a numbers game.
Also the importance of modal ringing is not to be underestemated. This must be obtained at a certain volume level if it is to approach anything like a real "audiophile" level of dynamics and realism. Those are two goals that are hardly unreasonable.
So, how do you have all of these important priorities?
The answer is you don't. You cannot have those priorities in a room with pretty curtains, doilies and a pure wool virgin rug. It ain't happening and untill people like yourself stop fostering this false info and admit the truth, you and others will not be even close to any accurate reproduction. You said, "thanks God I have a good room" "I am really lucky about", well you better be thanking God or some virgin saint of acoustics. And luck? I am pretty sure that as a scientist you really don't believe that luck has something to do with room acoustics, and its effect on audio reproduction, because the acoustics for your room are no different than any other room. Now you can continue to foster this bull that you have a great room and an accurate system to others but I for one don't believe anything you say. An untreated room is a disaster pure and simple! And yours is untreated.. so guess what? It is a disaster. Now you may treat the room up to a point that is good for you, with frilly curtains and sofas in front of your speakers but untill you admit the reality you will never progress.
Why is this such a "hard" subject? I don't know, but my guess is that you really dont want to see the Emperor Wears No Clothes. It will force you to admit certain truths that you find disturbing and against your belief system and dogmas. And it will reveal the hard cold fact that any system in an untreated room is a mess, which will be enable you to continue to foster overpriced equipment to an unsuspecting public.
What do I find all of this so disturbing? It is that your desires (in you stated goals) are exactly the same as mine! Why do we find it so hard to come to a meeting point?
In this thread you veered off course to save face, make contradictions and false claims even when others are agreeing with you. I am sure IMD is a problem, but please show me the problem and then reveal to me the answer, how do I lower IMD? How low do I need to go? How do I measure this? Or do I need your calibrated golden ears?
Raul, why do you find it so hard to answer my questions? Are they not relevent? Do they reveal too much that you are uncomfortable with? You are a manufacturer of very expensive equipment, do you not want me to believe that you have nothing but the best? Do you not want me to believe that when you test certain equipment, worlds best tonearm and 25 phono cartridges etc.. that you system is so inaccurate that it is useless. Would it not let the cat out of the bag to reveal that you system can not sound even anything like accurate when you have frequency deviations of plus/minus30db?
I say to you, lets start over with some meaningful dialog. And while we can continue to agree to disagree we can also be truthful with ourselves and others, in that way we can progress toward our quest.
I am sorry if you really did not know any of this, and really are ignorant of room acoustics and their effects. If that is the case you really need to do some searching.
Bob |
Dear Mark: Like I already say it: just an opinion, pure democracy and no big deal about!!!
" Constant impedance ", eh?: is this a fact or an " assumption " ?. I already take advantage: jaja-ja!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul,I am glad you state it is only your "opinion".Now we are getting somewhere!
... Also,you did a nice web-search regarding your "latest" post info on the Ascents....
That does not replace my extensive exposure to the product....BTW,I completely disagree about the Eidolon's superiority,as I specifically auditioned them,and compared.I have also spoken with numerous folks who felt the Ascent was the superior design,and they owned both!Information "not" gotten by doing a web-search,but in actual conversation.
Also,one can "easily" make a case for your own speakers having poor time domain issues(among other things),as they are used by you(just an example).You have a front firing tweeter,a back firing tweeter(without much room behind it)and an add on super-tweeter,which will be a disadvantage(technically)if not extremely close to the front tweeter.Of course,I have not heard it,but according to "your own" way of viewing the "technical" issues,it may not be very good.Just my "assumption"!-:)
I am being sarcastic,to make my point,in case you do not follow me.
The ONLY reason why I seem to be making it "a big deal",is because you are totally in the dark regarding actual negative comments,which do NOT stem from actual long term exposure,and knowledge of the design.You are very knowledgeable on many matters.This is NOT one of them,and both you and I know it!!
Actually,and in truth,if you go back about a week or two ago(on this thread)it is YOU who came out of left field and attacked my input regarding a comment made by me two years ago,regarding the "sub" issue!A surprise to me,at the time,especially coming from you.
Believe me,I am simply giving you some "heat",but have absolutely kind feelings towards you,as always....
You are simply going to have to be prepared for some folks to challenge your input when it is "wrong",and accept it.
BTW,I have the "ruler flat" read-outs on the speakers,but am not about to photo/scan it just to prove my point.You can use this to gain some silly advantage,if you want.
I look forward to suporting you on future threads,like I usually have in the past.Just post accurate information.
Best to you Raul,
Mark |
Dear Mark: What is all " these " about?. You return ( by any topic ) again and again.
I never say that the Ascents were a bad design or a bad sounding speaker. I only say that IMHO its crossover is one of its disadvantages, because you can't tell me that that speaker is " perfect " with out any disadvantages.
266 parts where the signal must pass on ( see it. ) could be an advantage ( from your point of view ) or could not be an advantage ( from my point of view ).
CH made its own speaker trade-offs design where you or any one else can or can't agree/like ( I'm not saying nothing like an in deep criticism on the design. ), it is just audio opinion democracy.
Please read what a Ascent owner ( that change to the Eidolon ) say about:
++++ The Ascents are not particularly efficient, meaning that they like amplifiers that deliver lots of clean power. I have been running them with VAC 140 monoblocks, which is a great match, but they also sound great with good solid state amps. These particular speakers are the Mark II model. This means that the drivers and crossovers were upgraded from the original release. Eventually, Avalon used its experience in developing their massive and extremely pricey Osiris model to create the Eidolon, which has replaced the Ascents in their lineup of products. The Eidolon does all of the same things that the Ascents do, only better. +++++
other than what we can read, you say: +++ and a sensitive design with good efficiency. " ++++
well this owner thinks: ++++ The Ascents are not particularly efficient.... " +++++
You know another opinion: just democracy!.
And there are extreme opinions about, take a look:
++++I'll get straight to the point. The Vandersteen 1 B loudspeaker is, at $695 the pair, something of an embarrassment for its pricier transducing brethren in the High End. Not because it is better than the $7000 ProAc Response Three, $9200 Stax F41, or $15,000 Avalon Ascent Mk II , outstanding speakers with which I am personally familiar), but because it is so good at $695.00 that one must wonder why we would spend 10 times as much or more for an incremental improvement that is certainly not commensurate. " +++++
Returning to the " constant impedance " on the Ascents I can't find a real measure about but I find from the Eclipse and Avatar: where their impedance specs you can read: nominal 6 Ohms and no below 5.5 Ohms ( similar of what you posted on the Ascents. ) that in the Stereophile Eclipse review its REAL electrival impedance is far far from be " constant impedance ", not only that but has trouble about depending which amp you are using to handle. The speaker efficiency is too in the low side ( 86db ) like the Avatar and Ascent: not like you say: ++ with good efficiency ++++
Could you show me that Ascent " constant impedance " graph that you are speaking? and ( between other things ) that is one of its crossover design advantage?.
Maybe you misunderstood the Ascent " crossover advantages " or think that your opinion is the " good " one and maybe it is for you: no problem about, is fine with me: only permit to " speak/talk " my self opinion about ( that I'm not saying in any way that is the " universal true " and nothing but the true. ), Mark it is only other opinion: not big deal on...!!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul I simply cannot let your assumption of audio theory trump a "fact",which greatly affects the listening experience,and "minimizes a designers expertise,and great effort"...of course you may take the comments as my being defensive about your thoughts,and it may be correct,to an extent...BUT you are absolutely clueless about your impression that more parts in the Ascent Mk-II crossover "means" loss of signal transmission or loss of musical information,or just some kind of weakness....I definitely believe your exposure to the speaker was from some demos given by your friend,who was the distributor,and your claims are baseless to me,and owner of the design,and someone who was at it's inception into the audio community.From it's introduction onwards.
Distributors want to "distribute/sell" equipment.They "generally" are not privvy to the minutiae of design,and I don't blame them.
Your claim about the Ascent crossover being a weakness "absolutely" tells me you have no knowledge what-so-ever,as to what has gone into this design.
What we want from a speaker,aside from great sound,is the ability to drive it with a wide variety of amplifiers.Hence,keeping the load/impedence relatively easy for whatever amp one wants to use.
We want a constant impedence,and a sensitive design with good efficiency.The vast majority of "popular" speakers today are poor representations of this.ALL of the newer Avalon Designs are now ported(Re-read my previous posting about the .5 Q factor and transient behavior,as they are FACT,not assumption)and have loads that go down to 3.2 ohms,which are hard on an amp(distortion?).
They also have internal crossovers,which are absolutely not the best place for sensitive parts,but lower production costs.
The AVATAR was the last design Charles Hansen designed for the "original "Avalon!It was designed to a price point(unlike the "cost no object" Ascent MK-II)and was a far cheaper product than the Ascent.Still a very good speaker,but totally outclassed by it's big brother!.
The Ascent MK-II was a clean slate speaker design that was designed with no limit on costs,hence the "two" external crossovers(total of 110 lbs,and 350 lbs for the speakers themselves)and the ABILITY to keep a CONSTANT impedence of 6 ohms across the ENTIRE freq range.It NEVER drops below 5.5 ohms.The crossover's complexity is another reason why "each seperate driver" see's it's own dedicated amplifier,from one amp ONLY,AND the sophisticated damping circuits employeed allow for this HUGE advantage!Far less IMD(a term you like alot).
Your lack of "true knowledge" about this design(having heard it is no substitute for actually knowing every aspect of it design benefits),and the incorrect/negative comments made about the crossover,takes away from the original designer's extreme efforts that went into "that" speaker!!
AND the design efforts were thorough,and EXTREME!!One reason I know this is I had followed the design development(from afar,but greatly interested) and personally knew the original reviewer,who gave credibility and exposure to such a "landmark "product.
It is a "textbook" speaker,for those "understanding" the significant advantages of "constant impedence","easy load","extraordinary transient response","open sound with stunninmg clarity/definition/harmonic truth",and almost non-existant stored energy,not to mention a "still" unequalled ability to soundstage properly!..
Of course you are free to draw any conclusions you want,but as of the here and now,you have exposed yourself as being human,like the rest of us...That is you make assumptions without "all" the facts,let theory affect your thoughts,and are as influenced by industry trends as all of us!
Not a bad thing,really.Just human!
Best. |
Thanks Raul,you've told me all I need to know.
Best. |
Dear Sirspeedy: Too many parts where the signal goes through. In those times seems to me that the Avatar was its best performer model, of course that because does not go so deep had lower " problems ".
Floor material?: concrete with a 1" pure wool oriental rug.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul,from a "purley listening experience" perspective,and from what "your own ears" told you(not some importer), what problem did you think you encountered with the Ascent's "complex" crossover(btw,it is over 130 parts,whew)?....I'd be interested in how you arrived at "why" the complexity of the crssover is to be considered a "weakness" from a "listening criteria only",since the speaker is as "clear as spring water" to me.Maybe I need to reevaluate my tastes?
This gives me a clue as to how you actually view the hobby....Whether you "hear the problem",or you feel the fact that there are too many component parts employed is the weakness.
Also,could you please let me know what your listening room's floor material is?Wood?Concrete?etc
Just curious,as this gives me some perspective as to your specific tastes.
Thanks. |
Dear Mark: +++++ " you have NO idea what the Ascent MK-II is capable of with "today" equipment " +++++
I can imagine because my very old ADS are awesome with " today " equipment and there is no reason to think that the Ascents ( that I know very well ) are not.
+++++ " Sometimes I believe you are way too analytical " +++++
well I think a little different, that's all.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Well Raul,the actual reason why Avalon stopped adding this crossover to future designs was due to it's extensive cost/wife acceptance factors/additional crating/shipping costs,amongst other factors...Not performance limitations!..Sometimes I believe you are way too analytical,to the detriment of "musical performance"!
This is a topic I have discussed with quite a few "industry" folks,including the "new" folks at Avalon,and the response I have gotten was,in exact words..."We had forgotten just how good that speaker sounds"!And that was from experience with the equipment of the "yesterday era".With today's top equipment the performance is unrivaled,IMO.One reason why I hold on to them,and have made exceptional attempts to compare to other designs!
I assure you(a guarantee,actually)you have NO idea what the Ascent MK-II is capable of with "today" equipment,but I am sure you will post something "negative".
In truth,the complexity and design of the crossover is the absolute "strength" of the design,which is a "fact"(and I have "extensively" looked into this),but I know I am banging my head against a wall in trying to convince you of "almost any audio matter",so let's just call it a day -:)
Good luck |
Dear Sirspeedy: I think that you are a little " angry " with me, maybe because my last post to you: please let me explain a little about because what I went to say was wrong " writed ":
- about Sid of course that I care about him and it is so good to know that he is a bass " fanatic " ( because, IMHO , the music foundation belongs to that frequency range. ).
I say that the main thread subject is not about bass ( at least not in the old traditional way. ) but other critical advantages where the subs are involve so the bass " fanatic " subject can't help us.
- Avalon speakers: I want to tell you how Avalon ( along other names. ) help me to almost start my growing-up on the high-end audio/music home entertainment.
Many years ago ( when appear the Ascent/Eclipse/Avatar Avalon line ) it happens that in those times here in México start the true dealer/distributor high-end " boom ". Many of those dealers and audiophiles of those times are one of my best friends today.
We ( audiophiles ) were extremely enthusiastic people with a " hungry " to learn and discovery the true high end world, almost of all of us achieve that goal in more/less manner.
We obtain a very friendly support from every high-end dealer ( six of them ) and we attend almost every single day ( like a group. ) to its show rooms where we not only heard music over different systems but where some one speaks to the group on different music/sound reproduction topic.
Well, Fredy ( a very wealthy person ) was a heavy enthusiastic dealer from Avalon/Rowland/Accuphase, / ASC/ VTL/etc, he had three different show rooms ( between others including home theater ones. ) only for Avalon/Rowland: Ascent, Eclipse and Avatar room.
All those rooms were tested/approved by Avalon ( Neil Pattel. ), well we goes there two three times a week to heard those audio system but not only to heard it but to test different options: amps, preamps, cables, speaker position, etc, etc. So I really go in deep with Avalon and through its " magic " I fall in love with the high end " stage ".
Neil comes several times to Mexico and in two ocassions he give us all the in deep Avalon design goals, he " naked " his Ascent ( including crossover ) and explain everything about.
Then comes with the MK2 Ascent version and change its original design.
So Avalon is a name that I have in very good shape for its high build quality and high quality performance but that big external crossover was a disadvantage for its speaker manufacturer and in commercial way and they change it to improve: they achieve its improvement goals? only the Avalon's owners could be answer from sure.
When we see for the first time that big crossover all of us ( with out heard the speakers ) were impressed for say the least but over the years I learn that sometimes " less is more " in audio.
I don't try in my last post in any way to say that your Avalons are not good speakers because I know it very well and are good ones.
Thank you for your understanding. No, you don't have to answer.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Hi Raul, I have taken this to my thread "In room response".
Please read and I look forward to your response. Here is the link for the photo in "my systems", http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/vs/i/f/1209483707.jpg
I look forward to discussing this in my forum.
Bob |
